TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 531X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considered by this Tribunal in the case of ARHAM SPINNING MILLS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR [ 2005 (9) TMI 463 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] where it was held that there is no justification for including financial cost in the assessable value. The objection of the Revenue is that the Appellant had collected extra amount by not passing the cash discount and in the guise of financial charges, hence, being an additional consideration, hence to be included in the value of the goods. Rebutting the said argument, the Appellant had referred to their price policy, disclosing there under the slab-wise cash discount admissible on the sale price slab-wise; also in the said policy, they disclosed interest for delayed payment depending u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, by way of issuing debit notes and showing in their books of account as financial charges, since in the nature of additional consideration, accordingly includible in the assessable value, differential duty of ₹ 16,80,129/- for the period from October 2003 to June 2009 was demanded by issuing notice dt.05.01.2008, with interest and penalty. On adjudication, the demand was reduced to ₹ 2,59,813/- with interest and penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, both the Appellant as well as the Revenue have filed the appeals before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), who has rejected the Assessee s appeal and allowed the Revenue s appeal. Hence, the present appeals. 3. At the outset, the learned Advocate for the Appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble value. In support, the learned Advocate referred to the following judgments:- a) Distant Horizon Orchard Pvt. Ltd Vs CCE (A) 2015 (37) STR 202 (Cal.) b) John Dere (I) Ltd Vs CCE 2014 (311) ELT 189 (Tri-Mumbai) c) CCE Vs Raja Ram Corn. Products 2004 (167) ELT 410 (Tri-Del) d) Shree Renuka Sugar Ltd Vs CCE 2007 (210) ELT 385 (Tri-Bang.) e) Simplex Infrastructures Ltd Vs CST 2016 (42) STR 634 (Cal.) 4. It is further submitted that the Adjudicating authority, taking note of the fact that the transactions entered into by the Appellant with their customers were known to the Department from the letter addressed to the Superintendent way back on 25.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the said recovery of financial charges are nothing but additional consideration flowing from the customers to the Appellant and consequently requires to be included in the assessable value. The Appellant, on the other hand, contended that the cash discount is allowed to the customers who makes the payment within the stipulated period and there is no dispute on it. However, if the customers delay in making payment beyond specified period, interest is charged, which is the financial cost to the Company for late receipt of payment and accordingly debit notes were issued to the Appellant for recovery of said financial charges separately. 8. We find that this issue of inclusion of financial charges in the value has been consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on towards yarn sold. It is a realisation towards interest for the time taken in making payment. 5. It is well settled that assessable value is to be worked out with regard to time of removal of the goods under assessment. Collection towards delay in payment, be it called interest or Financial cost or by any other term, is a cost subsequent to the time of removal of the goods. Such a cost cannot find place in the price of the goods at the time of removal. 6. The appellant has also placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CCE,. New Delhi v. Vikram Detergent Ltd. - 2001 (127) E.L.T. 641 (S.C.) that banking charges, being in the nature of post-removal expenses, is deductible from t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the example mentioned by the learned Commissioner in the impugned order has submitted that the interest is recovered for the delayed period and also they had recovered certain financial charges in addition to the interest for delayed payment by the customers. In this regard, he has referred to the letter dt.14.06.2002 addressed to the Superintendent (Pages 66-67 of the Appeal Paper Book). Therefore, it is their contention that the financial charges are recovered only when the delay exceeds more than 33 to 43 days. It is their contention that measures have been taken to discourage the late payment and also to compensate the financial cost incurred by the Appellant for not receiving the payment such charges are made. The amounts received ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
